Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1991 16(1):1-18; DOI:10.1215/03616878-16-1-1
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Robinson, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Paxman, D. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Duke University Press

Technological, Economic, and Political Feasibility in OSHA's Air Contaminants Standard

James C. Robinson and Dalton G. Paxman
University of California, Berkeley

In 1989, after almost two decades of substance-by-substance standard setting, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) promulgated its Air Contaminants Standard, imposing new exposure limits for 376 toxic substances encountered in U.S. industry. In marked contrast to earlier regulations, the Air Contaminants Standard has generated relatively little industry opposition. This paper analyzes the standard in the context of the twenty-year debate over the appropriate role for technological feasibility and economic compliance costs in occupational health policy. The political feasibility of the new standard is traced to OSHA's abandonment of "technology forcing" in favor of reliance on "off-the-shelf" technologies already in use in major firms. While important as an embodiment of OSHA's new "generic" approach to regulation, the Air Contaminants Standard cannot serve as a model for future occupational health policy, due to its reliance on informal, closed-door mechanisms for establishing regulatory priorities and permissible exposure limits.







  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Copyright 1991 by Duke University Press